Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Wikipedia Used for Artificial Intelligence

Zonk posted more than 7 years ago | from the great-it-has-finally-become-self-aware dept.

Software 177

eldavojohn writes "It may be no surprise but Wikipedia is now being used in the field of artificial intelligence. The applications for this may be endless. For instance, the front of spam fighting is a tough one and it looks as though researchers are now turning towards an ontology or taxonomy based solution to fight spammers. The concept is also on the forefront of artificial intelligence and progress towards an application passing the Turing Test and creating semantically aware applications. The article comments on uses of Wikipedia in this manner: '"... spam filters block all messages containing the word 'vitamin,' but fail to block messages containing the word B12. If the program never saw B12 before, it's just a word without any meaning. But you would know it's a vitamin," Markovitch said. "With our methodology, however, the computer will use its Wikipedia-based knowledge base to infer that 'B12' is strongly associated with the concept of vitamins, and will correctly identify the message as spam," he added.'"

cancel ×

177 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Confusion (1)

camelrider (46141) | more than 7 years ago | (#17499064)

Won't this pose a problem for today's semantically challenged "geek".?

Wikipedia needs work for spam filtering.... (2, Insightful)

MoHaG (1002926) | more than 7 years ago | (#17499066)

With the example of using Wikipedia for spam filtering as mentioned in the post, maybe more articles need to be written on spam-slang for Viagra....

Re:Wikipedia needs work for spam filtering.... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17499392)

by spam slang, do you mean stuff like V1AGRA or V14GR4 or V1I1A1G1R1A?
If so, I'm pretty sure thats a pattern recognition problem.
As long as the AI knew what the correct spelling for viagra,it would be able to recognise the characters of the word viagra in V1I1A1G1R1A.
Also you could train an AI to recognise 1 as I or L so that when the text V14GRA appears, it knows what viagra is, and realises it looks like V14GR4 so it raises the probability of the text being spam.

More abstract phrases would be harder to classify, but there is a link to slang words for stuff like http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Wikisaurus:penis#Eng lish [wiktionary.org]

so stuff like "got wood?" etc could in theory be classified.

Re:Wikipedia needs work for spam filtering.... (4, Insightful)

Metasquares (555685) | more than 7 years ago | (#17500176)

Infer too much and the false positive rate skyrockets, though...

Probably in use for a while. (1)

CookieOfFortune (955407) | more than 7 years ago | (#17499068)

I wouldn't be surprised if Mossad's been using this for a while.

uh oh, there goes wikipedia (4, Interesting)

ILuvRamen (1026668) | more than 7 years ago | (#17499076)

don't you think masses of spammers are going to screw with wikipedia strategically on purpose so that it doesn't work properly for that if it starts to work very well to block them? They should just stop being afraid of being called racist and super-filter every e-mail that comes out of South Korea, Indonesia, and especially Nigeria, etc. Type spam map into google image search to see how blatently obvious it is to see where the spam comes from. Something like 98% of spam can be pinned down to 0.01% of the world by square footage. If they added fuzzy logic instead of alterable AI and only block e-mails from south korea with the word vitamin and not block ones from Nebraska with the word vitamin, then the problem would be decreased dramatically.

Re:uh oh, there goes wikipedia (4, Insightful)

WilliamSChips (793741) | more than 7 years ago | (#17499286)

You don't think there are hundreds of thousands of zombifiable computers in the United States? And what about people with business connections in China or Korea?

Re:uh oh, there goes wikipedia (5, Interesting)

ScentCone (795499) | more than 7 years ago | (#17499416)

You don't think there are hundreds of thousands of zombifiable computers in the United States?

Um, so? That doesn't make it inappropriate to block traffic from places where the overwhelming majority of the packets are toxic. It's a system-by-system, admin-by-admin judgement call, but there's no question that Korea isn't doing nearly enough to stop this problem locally. If the local culture starts to realize that they're isolating themselves from large sections of the internet because they won't do something to prevent 99% of their outbound mail from being spam, then maybe the need to filter will also go away.

And what about people with business connections in China or Korea?

I have a lot of customers with contacts like that. All of them (their Asian contacts) use Yahoo, Gmail, and similar accounts specifically to avoid this problem. Businesses in China and Korea are totally aware that most ISPs in those areas have poisoned outbound SMTP relays and user desktops. Or, they host their western-facing mail servers with providers in the west - I see a lot of that, too, since many of those businesses have two separate messaging platforms for the different international audiences with whom they communicate.

Re:uh oh, there goes wikipedia (1)

orkysoft (93727) | more than 7 years ago | (#17499864)

Or, they host their western-facing mail servers with providers in the west - I see a lot of that, too, since many of those businesses have two separate messaging platforms for the different international audiences with whom they communicate.

So those servers aren't being abused by spammers, as their normal mail servers are? But who does receive mail from the abused servers, then? Since it's almost all spam, it seems like everybody would want to block them.

Re:uh oh, there goes wikipedia (2, Informative)

gradedcheese (173758) | more than 7 years ago | (#17499306)

most spam I get now looks to be from botnets rigged up using people's PCs here in the United States. Very little (in my inbox anyway) comes from the usual suspect geographical areas.

Re:uh oh, there goes wikipedia (1)

DavidShor (928926) | more than 7 years ago | (#17499436)

I did as you said, it seems like Nigeria is rather insignificant, the problem is more one of population density.

Re:uh oh, there goes wikipedia (2, Insightful)

Walt Dismal (534799) | more than 7 years ago | (#17499548)

I agree that using Wikipedia opens up the knowledge base to strategic contamination. Any party with a vested interest could alter certain information and bias AIs using it. That is why I think the Israeli approach cited will run into problems.

In my own research I've looked at the problem of AI knowledgebase contamination and know that unless a truth validation system is employed, it is all too easy to condemn the poor AI to reasoning with flawed data. And it's very difficult to design a good validation mechanism. Can you use 'common' knowledge and opinion to check against? Well, the masses aren't always right. There are a lot of falsehoods floating around the Internet. Collecting a pool of information from various sources requires effort to cross-check and evaluate.

Of course humans face the same problem, and a lot of people reason with incomplete, incorrect, invalid data. Which might explain why the dollar is dropping versus the Euro. :)

Re:uh oh, there goes wikipedia (1)

maxwell demon (590494) | more than 7 years ago | (#17500608)

Maybe the AI just has to understand how to use the Wikipedia page history. And maybe run the Wikipedia pages through some spam filter ...

Re:uh oh, there goes wikipedia (1)

NeutronCowboy (896098) | more than 7 years ago | (#17499584)

Damn - that first sentence of yours took the words right out of my mouth. Unfortunately, I don't agree one iota with the rest of your post. But I'll just deal with the first point....

I sure as hell hope that this approach fails miserably, because I can guarantee you that the next development will be the bot-based modification of all articles in the Wikipedia. There might be some development after that of captcha interstitials before posting or modifying anything, combined with some attempt at developing a more permanent community around posters. Personally, I'd like to see some moderation and meta-moderation system similar to what Slashdot uses, along with a decay that requires posters to be ranked higher and higher to modify articles as they get older and older. I think that'll will contribute a great bit towards making Wikipedia more stable and more useful, even if it comes at the expense of its lightning-quick response time.

Re:uh oh, there goes wikipedia (1)

timeOday (582209) | more than 7 years ago | (#17499784)

I sure as hell hope that this approach fails miserably, because I can guarantee you that the next development will be the bot-based modification of all articles in the Wikipedia. There might be some development after that of captcha interstitials before posting or modifying anything, combined with some attempt at developing a more permanent community around posters.
What this argument boils down to is "I don't want computers to get smarter because I don't like some of the applications." Of course there's some truth to that; we're not going to make software that "understands" Wikipedia (in a slightly less weak sense than before) without also making spambots smarter, it's all the same. But focusing on Spam is very shortsighted. Different parties have always had an interest in skewing information sources to their own ends. The whole essence of Wikipedia is coping with that through mass participation. So now AI is fighting over the same info territory as people? Sounds like progress to me, the AI must be getting smarter.

Re:uh oh, there goes wikipedia (1)

maxwell demon (590494) | more than 7 years ago | (#17500662)

It will get interesting when AIs start edit wars at Wikipedia :-)

Re:uh oh, there goes wikipedia (1)

NeutronCowboy (896098) | more than 7 years ago | (#17500994)

What this argument boils down to is "I don't want computers to get smarter because I don't like some of the applications."


Err, no. I have no idea where you got this idea from. What I actually don't like is weak attempts at improving the intelligence of computers. Furthermore, I like even less weak attempts at improving the intelligence of computers whose direct and inevitable consequence is the corruption of an incredibly useful resource, which in turn will lead to the corruption of the AI - the initial goal of the project.

I don't have a problem with AI edit wars. I have a problem with edit wars whose sole purpose is to destroy useful information. And that's where this is approach is going to lead to.

Re:uh oh, there goes wikipedia (1)

poopdeville (841677) | more than 7 years ago | (#17499980)

Yes, this approach will fail miserably.

It works well in principal, and the algorithms to implement the approach are well understood. But they are phenomenally computationally expensive. And Wikipedia is a very large dataset to mine from.

This is pretty much true of all AI, unfortunately.

Re:uh oh, there goes wikipedia (1)

maxwell demon (590494) | more than 7 years ago | (#17500700)

Maybe the spammers will find a new use for their botnets ... imagine all Windows computers on the net turning into a single, gigantic distributed AI!

Re:uh oh, there goes wikipedia (5, Interesting)

Mr Chund Man (1013539) | more than 7 years ago | (#17499774)

Spam Map [postini.com]

"South Korea, Indonesia, and especially Nigeria, etc"
While we're at it, why not block Alberta, California, North Carolina, Virginia, Colorado, Oklahoma, Kansas, Vermont, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Spain, France and Portugal - all spam hotspots according to the map cited? What's that, you receive email from people in these places? Tough titties, if we're to block email coming from spam hotspots as you say.

Also, you've managed to point a finger of blame at Indonesia and Nigeria who are saintly in comparison to some more developed nations. Go racism!

vitamins? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17499084)

As explained above its entirly too simple and will flag way too many false positives. For example all the emails my dad sent me last week about vitamins would have been sent directly to my spam box... maybe im missing something here.

Re:vitamins? (1)

asavage (548758) | more than 7 years ago | (#17499182)

I think it just wasn't explained well. What it is supposed to do is recognize that an unseen word has the same meaning as a word the spam filter already knows and adjust the score of the email in the same way. Any email filter that filtered out emails based on the occurrence of any single word would have an unacceptable amount of legitimate email filtered.

Nothing new here... (5, Funny)

Bodrius (191265) | more than 7 years ago | (#17499106)

This isn't new to Slashdotters...

For years, Slashdot posts have used wikipedia as a form of artificial intelligence.

Re:Nothing new here... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17499296)

For years, Slashdot posts have used wikipedia as a form of artificial intelligence.

Which you must admit is a nice change from natural stupidity.

Re:Nothing new here... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17499858)

For years, Slashdot posts have used wikipedia as a form of artificial intelligence.


For those who don't know what AI is:


Artificial intelligence (AI) can be defined as intelligence exhibited by an artificial (non-natural, manufactured) entity. AI is studied in overlapping fields of computer science, psychology and engineering, dealing with intelligent behavior, learning and adaptation in machines, generally assumed to be computers.

Gentlemen, I give you Be-12! (2, Insightful)

CRCulver (715279) | more than 7 years ago | (#17499108)

Buy the federal phamacon regulatory agency's approved Be-12 from our licenced apotecaries! It's Be-12, the addition to your daily sustinence intake that makes it easier to just Be you!

I suspect that any skilled spammer can work around such filters through circumlocution. Some of the penis spam I've been getting lately is really impressive in how oblique a reference to sex can be and yet still be immediately understandable.

Titter Ye Not... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17499728)

: Some of the penis spam I've been getting lately is really impressive in how oblique a reference to sex
: can be and yet still be immediately understandable.

Hmm.... the Carry On [wikipedia.org] films and Up Pompeii [wikipedia.org] were doing that in the 60s and 70s... :)

WikiTuring Test (1)

MillionthMonkey (240664) | more than 7 years ago | (#17499114)

wife at the devil, and the wife certainly cuckolds her husband. Whereas, house of Austria acquired the seventeen provinces, and by the latter, his from Leipsig, to which he refers in a subsequent one, and which I upon, than 'la pluie et le beau tens'.
So which is it, Wikipedia? Should I open the big image attachment?

Re:WikiTuring Test (3, Funny)

Halo1 (136547) | more than 7 years ago | (#17499398)

I recently got quite funny attempt like that, pumping some stock in the image attachment (which moreover looked like a captcha in order to avoid ocr). The title of the spam was however "cocaine inexcusable", and the body, well (just two sample quotes -- and yes, the two first sentences appeared together like that):

We are working with Internet Content Rating Association to make the internet safer for children. Powered by a super strong Japanese motor and gears this incredibly powerful anal probe will hit the spot every time.
The Blue Rocket is a handy little clit massager that packs a mighty punch.

Needless to say, it triggered the bayasian filter pretty heavily in spite of all the obfuscation attempts :)

Re:WikiTuring Test (1)

MillionthMonkey (240664) | more than 7 years ago | (#17499870)

We are working with Internet Content Rating Association to make the internet safer for children. Powered by a super strong Japanese motor and gears this incredibly powerful anal probe will hit the spot every time.
The Blue Rocket is a handy little clit massager that packs a mighty punch.
Want to see where their spider got this stuff?

The safe for children crap [bionictonic.co.uk] (since reworded)
The Intimate Intruder Anal Probe [bionictonic.co.uk]
The Wrist Rocket [bionictonic.co.uk]

The B12 example is horrible (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17499126)

Suppose somebody was trying to sell me a B12 bomber.

That wouldn't be spam to me, but an exclusive offer that would cause me to act now.

Re:The B12 example is horrible (3, Informative)

tepples (727027) | more than 7 years ago | (#17499576)

Suppose somebody was trying to sell me a B12 bomber.

Then your e-mail account's Bayes map would have the map (word B12 -> folder Aircraft) with a high probability, which would outweigh (word B12 -> article Vitamin -> folder Drug Spam).

Re:The B12 example is horrible (1)

maxwell demon (590494) | more than 7 years ago | (#17500818)

Of course, someone you want to meet in Germany could send you a mail how to get to him, containing the words: "Then you have to take the B12" (B12 here means Bundesstraße 12, i.e. federal street 12). Unless you get lots of mail with way descriptions from Germany, it's quite unlikely that "B12->german street" will have a high probability to your spam filter. OTOH this is the type of mail which you certainly don't want to get filtered out.

i prefer (4, Funny)

macadamia_harold (947445) | more than 7 years ago | (#17499140)

For instance, the front of spam fighting is a tough one and it looks as though researchers are now turning towards an ontology or taxonomy based solution to fight spammers.

I think it would be much more effective if we used a taxidermy-based solution to fight spammers.

Save me! Math. (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17499148)

"The applications for this may be endless. For instance, the front of spam fighting is a tough one and it looks as though researchers are now turning towards an ontology or taxonomy based solution to fight spammers. "

So what happened to bayesian filters as our saviour [slashdot.org] ?

Re:Save me! Math. (3, Interesting)

CRCulver (715279) | more than 7 years ago | (#17499196)

The Bayesian analysis in spam filters only works on text. Spammers realized that they could get around it by filling the text portion of the message with some random passage from a Project Gutenberg file, thus making it seem innocuous, and then putting the real advertisement in a GIF or PNG file that would be displayed by HTML-capable mail readers. Bayesian analysis can still work, but only in combination with OCR software.

Re:Save me! Math. (1)

Danny Rathjens (8471) | more than 7 years ago | (#17499464)

Bayesian analysis can still work, but only in combination with OCR software.
That is not entirely correct. Bayesian filters work with *all* textual tokens in a message, not just the visible text in the body of the message. e.g. if your image spam all have various combinations of debora@somerandomdomain in the mail headers as a recent spambot was doing or if your spam all used the same relays and consequently has the same Received: headers, then a Bayesian filter will still rank it higher than non-spam. I have yet to install the ocr plugin for spamassassin and yet the majority of image spam my company receives are still correctly marked spam with a high bayes score.

Obviously spamassassin has other tests to combine the bayesian test with, but that is the whole idea and the reason it works well; since no test is perfect but can give good indications. Using ocr to examine the images gives you one more test. So it improves the accuracy - at the cost of more intensive resource usage - but normal bayesian analysis is by no means completely ineffective without ocr.

Re:Save me! Math. (1)

rjshields (719665) | more than 7 years ago | (#17499726)

Yes, but OCR is too slow to actually be useful. Plus spammers are using slanted, wobbly, coloured text, random backgrounds and all manner of methods to prevent OCR from working effectively.

Re:Save me! Math. (1)

maxwell demon (590494) | more than 7 years ago | (#17500864)

Of course, a program which detects images consisting of slanted, wobbly, colored text with random background wouldn't have to OCR that text anyway: Any such image has almost 100% spam probability.

Re:Save me! Math. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17500366)

Bayesian analysis can still work, but only in combination with OCR software.

No... it can't! When will people wake up and smell the coffee?? Content based filtering is NOT working and will NEVER work!

There is no way that software will be able to decide what is legit and what is spam based purely on the content of the message, not reliably enough any way. And mean while you are allowing the spammers to eat up massive amounts of bandwidth and server resources by passing their messages in full all they way to your users desktop clients.

No, the way to stop spam HAS to be connection based filtering! Things like SPF and DNS RBLs. Refuse the connection BEFORE the spammers have a chance to waste your server bandwidth and resources! Refuse the email BEFORE it ends up cluttering the inbox of your users! We all need to focus on a stronger effort (by the email server admin community) to weed out what IPs are legit and what IPs are being used by asshole spammers!!

The advantages to connection based filtering far out weigh those of content based filtering. As I previously mentioned, if you refuse the connection you save bandwidth. But it goes beyond this. If you accidently refuse a legit connection the sending party will at least get a legit bounce notice back from their server. This is something you cannot get from content based filtering, as it is not safe and considered extremely rude to have your system send out responses to every message flagged as spam based on content. So with content based filtering the sender has NO IDEA if their message ends up getting filtered by the receiptient! With connection based filtering they would definitly get a bounce notice if their server was being accidently and/or incorrectly flagged as a source of spam. And the final advantage of connection based filtering? It provides a negative feedback to these spammer assholes!!! Even if you do the most incredible job in the world of using content filtering, the spammers are still able to send messages to your address and have NO idea you are not reading their crap. So they just keep sending more! If all of a sudden they find them selves unable to send messages to the majority of SMTP servers on the Net they would KNOW they are being blocked!

I say it's time we all started moving SPF and DNS RBL checking to the connection stage of our SMTP servers! I for one am already working on this, writting a proxy that can sit infront of any SMTP server and just drop unwanted connections using a MySQL DB to track SPF and DNS RBL tagged IPs...

Welcome your troll overlord (1)

Tablizer (95088) | more than 7 years ago | (#17499166)

All the trolls and spammers on W.P. will F-up this AI, and Skynet will be trolling and spamming mankind forever.
     

Seems like a concept. (1)

Assassin bug (835070) | more than 7 years ago | (#17499192)

However, since Wikipedia [wikipedia.org] is not the model of truth hopefully they are going to perform crosschecks with other sources? Or maybe they will just use peer reviewed pages [wikipedia.org] or "feature articles" [wikipedia.org] ? Still, cross-checks with additional online encyclopedias [bartleby.com] would be a good idea.

They don't need truth. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17500026)

You seem to be under the impression that the AI is designed to figure out whether a given e-mail is reliable or accurate. It is not. It is designed to figure out what the subject of a spam actually is. If a letter is titled "Hi! It's your Uncle Harold!" and inside is a Markov-chain generated letter on the subject of "v1aqra", a conventional spam filter may have trouble understanding that the letter is selling pills. Bayesian approaches come close, but they're in the hands of the spammers too... spammers just check their algorithms against the filter and try to get a low score.

What these researchers need is a large number of articles on a variety of subjects a human being would not describe as "nonsense." It doesn't matter whether the wikipedia article claims the common cold is caused by a virus or by swamp gas, the AI will still learn that the common cold is often associated with coughing, sneezing, sniffles or a mild fever. Viagra is associated with sex, ladies, satisfaction and inversely associated with penile pumps, spanish fly and oysters. A program that understands this is more likely to catch a cleverly generated spam.

My question is whether this program will associate the acronym "AI" with the adjective "burgeoning." The association with this cliche is so strong in my mind I was sure I saw it in the summary, but it seems I was wrong. That's how human brains work.

Google is burgeoning too. [google.ca]

Re:They don't need truth. (1)

Assassin bug (835070) | more than 7 years ago | (#17500618)

Good point. I suppose the AI is learning habit more than word definitions.

Re:Seems like a concept. (1)

Grismar (840501) | more than 7 years ago | (#17500132)

Frankly, I'm not too worried about that. I'd worry myself about them being able to do anything useful with it in the first place.

It doesn't say a whole lot about how they plan to actually parse this information (that's not exactly in a standard format) or how that will translate into something that'll make sense for searching.

Ofcourse they might be using techniques that have been around for ages, for analyzing corpi and inferring contextual information. Picking WikiPedia to do this is just a clever way to attract attention to a project that's not all that new afterall.

I'm not saying we won't be seeing results before long, but I doubt these guys will beat others to the punch just because they use WikiPedia as base material.

Cool solution to yesterday's problem (1)

G4from128k (686170) | more than 7 years ago | (#17499198)

It's not the words that the spam filter can't recognize that lets spam get through, its the increasing use of image spam. OCR and existing filters would do more to solve spam than would wiki-AI intelligent filters.

Of course, the minute anti-spam software/services use OCR is the minute that spam images start looking like captchas.

Re:Cool solution to yesterday's problem (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17499612)

For f*cks sake now I'll have to try to decipher the damn spam as well?!

Why don't you just fill the image with black color and force me to use Acrobat reader to get the text while you're at it?!!

Can't even get decent spam these days...

Re:Cool solution to yesterday's problem (1)

NoOneInParticular (221808) | more than 7 years ago | (#17500226)

Hmm, so what's actually happening is that the spammers are coercing the spam-filter writers to create good enough OCR so that the spammers can turn around and use that to circumvent the captcha's on the www. Talking about a devious ploy! We're fucked.

Artificial intelligence! (3, Informative)

tcopeland (32225) | more than 7 years ago | (#17499210)

And all this time you thought it was just if and switch statements!

Whenever someone claims that a program is semantically aware, be sure to reread Clay Shirky's article [shirky.com] on the Semantic web.

Future trends... (2, Interesting)

creimer (824291) | more than 7 years ago | (#17499226)

Articial Intelligence may evolve to the point that it may decide to rewrite Wikipedia from an human-centric point of view to a AI-centric point of view (i.e., World War II resulted in the deaths of six million AIs). Since people will believe anything and Wikipedia can't be wrong, it'll be one step towards the formation of the Matrix. After all, only the victors write history.

Great - it computers deciding what email I get (1)

cjonslashdot (904508) | more than 7 years ago | (#17499264)

This might be an interesting area of research, but I for one do not want my ISP deciding what is legitimate email. E.g., what if I WANT to email someone about vitamins??? I do not want to have the uncertainty that my email will be deleted as spam. That would destroy the usefulness of email as a major form of business and personal communication. If I configure a SPAM filter, or the filter is "advisory", that is fine. But using AI to decide and delete is not advisable IMHO. Going down the AI path seems to me like someone is going to start assuming that an AI filter can be smart enough to make guesses that I do not specifically configure. I do not want that. The real reason for SPAM is that email systems to not verify the sender. Sender verification is essential so that senders who spam can be blacklisted. Another problem is that people have global email addresses. What is needed is a unique address for each pair of sender and recipient. That way, if you give out your email address, it is unique to both you and the person you give it to (the person who you "invite" to contact you). This is similar to the concept of a "disposable" email address, except that there is no reason that it has to be disposable: it can be permanent. In effect, it creates a permanent way for an individual to reach you. E.g., you can create an address for person A to reach you as 'personA@mydomain.com'. If your email client then requires such unique sender/receiver addresses for all invited senders and requires sender verification for uninvited senders you have a very effective total anti-spam system.

Re:Great - it computers deciding what email I get (1)

MoHaG (1002926) | more than 7 years ago | (#17499366)

This might be an interesting area of research, but I for one do not want my ISP deciding what is legitimate email. E.g., what if I WANT to email someone about vitamins??? I do not want to have the uncertainty that my email will be deleted as spam. That would destroy the usefulness of email as a major form of business and personal communication. If I configure a SPAM filter, or the filter is "advisory", that is fine. But using AI to decide and delete is not advisable IMHO. Going down the AI path seems to me like someone is going to start assuming that an AI filter can be smart enough to make guesses that I do not specifically configure. I do not want that.

The real reason for SPAM is that email systems to not verify the sender. Sender verification is essential so that senders who spam can be blacklisted.

Another problem is that people have global email addresses. What is needed is a unique address for each pair of sender and recipient. That way, if you give out your email address, it is unique to both you and the person you give it to (the person who you "invite" to contact you). This is similar to the concept of a "disposable" email address, except that there is no reason that it has to be disposable: it can be permanent. In effect, it creates a permanent way for an individual to reach you. E.g., you can create an address for person A to reach you as 'personA@mydomain.com'. If your email client then requires such unique sender/receiver addresses for all invited senders and requires sender verification for uninvited senders you have a very effective total anti-spam system.

A lot of ISPs and webmail providers are already filter spam, making it more effective will probably not change what ISPs filter users' email without giving the user an option to turn it off.

Of course nothing prevents you from changing ISPs if your ISP forces unreasonable policies onto you...

Even with sender verification anyone can still register a domain and run their own mail servers. Sender verification will probably require all email servers on the internet to be replaced with different software using different protocols. Manual verification will not work either, I will just choose to communicate with companies that does not require manual verification.

Re:Great - it computers deciding what email I get (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 7 years ago | (#17499624)

Of course nothing prevents you from changing ISPs if your ISP forces unreasonable policies onto you...

Unless you live in Qatar [slashdot.org] . Or more practically for residents of countries with an anglophonic majority, unless you live in an area where both the local cable company and the local DSL company have policies that you consider unreasonable.

Uhh (1)

unborracho (108756) | more than 7 years ago | (#17499272)

B12 which is a vitamin which is also known to increase your health which your aunt sally sends you messages regularly on, so great, all messages from aunt sally are now blocked.

Re:Uhh (1)

DavidLeblond (267211) | more than 7 years ago | (#17499626)

Please excuse my dear aunt sally.

Re:Uhh (1)

nelsonal (549144) | more than 7 years ago | (#17500796)

Ha ha, I guess that's a pretty effective mnemonic (the firefox spell checker is the bees knees). I remembered that it was one, and remembered it, but had to google what it was supposed to be reminding me (even though I apply the order of operations nearly every day).

Re:Uhh (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 7 years ago | (#17499642)

B12 which is a vitamin which is also known to increase your health which your aunt sally sends you messages regularly on, so great, all messages from aunt sally are now blocked.

In an e-mail system with sane defaults, wouldn't your aunt sally get whitelisted rawther quickly if you regularly reply to her e-mails?

Re:Uhh (2, Interesting)

CoderDog (782544) | more than 7 years ago | (#17499658)

Presumably, Aunt Sally will be in your white-list and be passed through whether she's you tipping to startling new developments for viagra, or B-12. Most of the anti-spam work is done in an effort to avoid building mammoth personal black-lists of mostly short-lived addresses. I doubt we'll get rid of white-lists anytime soon, if ever.

What would impress me is an AI that filtered spam very effectively, but also noticed that Aunt Sally had a new email address and continued to deliver her mail.

Re:Uhh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17499834)

Unless Aunt Sally is a freakin' South Korean spam operator.

UMMMM wordnet? (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17499280)

this kind of technique has been used for a while..

http://wordnet.princeton.edu/ [princeton.edu]

and according to my source of AI, wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WordNet [wikipedia.org]
(like all sophisticated software) has been in development since the mid eighties..

WordNet® is a large lexical database of English, developed under the direction of George A. Miller. Nouns, verbs, adjectives and adverbs are grouped into sets of cognitive synonyms (synsets), each expressing a distinct concept. Synsets are interlinked by means of conceptual-semantic and lexical relations. The resulting network of meaningfully related words and concepts can be navigated with the browser. WordNet is also freely and publicly available for download. WordNet's structure makes it a useful tool for computational linguistics and natural language processing

Re:UMMMM wordnet? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17499614)

yes, I can't imagine that wikipedia would be better for this than wordnet or even a similar ontology in the same vein.

I work for wordnet, and I'm really getting a kick out of these replies...

seriously. I did. I even wrote a few APIs for it, in java and python. Good stuff.

Re:UMMMM wordnet? (1, Interesting)

modeless (978411) | more than 7 years ago | (#17500286)

I can't imagine that wikipedia would be better for this than wordnet

You must not have a very good imagination. Wikipedia articles are far larger than wordnet definitions, with much more potential to hold useful information. Wikipedia has a much larger scope than wordnet, including huge amounts of cultural, historical, and scientific data that wordnet ignores. Wikipedia has a larger team of contributors. Wikipedia has data in several other languages besides English. Wikipedia is constantly updated with the latest information in all of its articles.

Wordnet is more structured and carefully maintained, but that is its sole advantage over Wikipedia as far as I can see. And IMHO, that's not really an advantage when talking about real-world AI problems like detecting spam. Spam is not structured or carefully maintained. A successful real-world AI needs to deal with unstructured, ambiguous, even malicious data. An AI that can't tolerate these things will undoubtedly fail.

Since when (3, Insightful)

trifish (826353) | more than 7 years ago | (#17499316)

Since when a database + automated search (keyword patterns and relations) = artifical intelligence?

Re:Since when (1)

Flamesplash (469287) | more than 7 years ago | (#17499560)

You have just descibed Data Mining.

Re:Since when (4, Informative)

timeOday (582209) | more than 7 years ago | (#17499844)

Since when a database + automated search (keyword patterns and relations) = artifical intelligence?
What part of human/animal intelligence is not detecting, storing, and applying patterns and relations?

Re:Since when (0)

Luminus (34868) | more than 7 years ago | (#17500036)

The part of intelligence that involves semantic content, or actually understanding what a symbol means. That part that, per The Chinese Room Argument, explains why there will never be such a thing as what most would consider "AI."

If all intelligence amounts to is pattern-manipulation (syntax), then the weather (for example) is intelligent. But if intelligence amounts to more than just syntax, and it does, then no collection of keywords/databases/searches/processor speed will ever amount to intelligence.

Re:Since when (1)

timeOday (582209) | more than 7 years ago | (#17500570)

I hope we do have a spirit that makes us innately different from machines, but I'll just point out that an AI that can exhibit human-level intelligence would revolutionize the world, whether "weak" or "strong." In fact I'd prefer they were "weak" so we wouldn't have to give them rights or feel guilty about making them work for us.

Re:Since when (2, Insightful)

maxwell demon (590494) | more than 7 years ago | (#17501094)

What part of human/animal intelligence is not detecting, storing, and applying patterns and relations?

The creative part?

Re:Since when (2, Interesting)

timeOday (582209) | more than 7 years ago | (#17501148)

Maybe creative people just detect more abstract patterns (e.g. lower S/N ratio) than others?

Re:Since when (2, Informative)

sacrilicious (316896) | more than 7 years ago | (#17501380)

What part of human/animal intelligence is not detecting, storing, and applying patterns and relations?

Paraphrasing to make a point: What part of computing is not detecting, storing, and applying patterns and relations?

To be meaningful, "AI" should denote more than (as the article summary indicates is being done) doing a grep through a web repository to deduce associations. There are branches of AI founded on brain neurology (neural nets), evolution (Genetic Algorithms), Bayesian logic, and various other things. Not all of the variants I can think of necessarily should qualify as AI (IMO), but the ones I'm thinking of are all substantially more esoteric than the summary's described approach. I take the GP's point to be that using a web repository as a database is too pedestrian to qualify as AI.

Re:Since when (2, Interesting)

Kjella (173770) | more than 7 years ago | (#17499934)

Well, most of the defiitions on artifical intelligence go "intelligence by something artificial", then we're down to intelligence which is so fuzzily defined almost anything can be applied. The first definition on intelligence on wikipedia focuses on individuality, which in other words says it's a bunch of skills rolled up into one. The other is even fuzzier. Quote WP:

A second definition of intelligence comes from "Mainstream Science on Intelligence", which was signed by 52 intelligence researchers in 1994:
"a very general mental capability that, among other things, involves the ability to reason, plan, solve problems, think abstractly, comprehend complex ideas, learn quickly and learn from experience. It is not merely book learning, a narrow academic skill, or test-taking smarts. Rather, it reflects a broader and deeper capability for comprehending our surroundings"catching on", "making sense" of things, or "figuring out" what to do"

If you're able to use wikipedia to assiociate words, disassociate meanings of the same words (like the disambiguation pages), understand subsets and supersets (B12 relates to vitamin, vitanmin doesn't always relate to B12) then you're certainly emulating a lot of human intelligence. and well... the Eliza test is all about emulating human intelligence. In other words "we don't know what it is, but if you're like us it's intelligence".

In fact, there's a pretty big group of people which almost define intelligence as whatever only humans do. If animals do it, it's instinct and if computers do it, it's logic with no thought involved. Over the years we've been giving computers more and more "open" problems, not finite and deterministic as chess (which in itself was considered intelligence until humans got spanked in it) and it turns out, the computer isn't half bad at it.

So we shrink intelligence to things that are unique or rare, and the computer lacks the in-depth understanding. Goodbye pattern recognition (statistical analysis) and inductive logic (bayesian filters, neural nets) as intelligence. Hell, we got computers hooked up to research labs essentially running the whole scientific method of characterisations, hypotheses, predictions and experiments and yet, intelligence is something else. I think that in the end, that "does computers have intelligence?" will be a question of philosophy along the lines of "do animals have souls?", because well... what we're doing isn't that magical.

Re:Since when (1)

blank axolotl (917736) | more than 7 years ago | (#17500270)

The intelligence is in the search part. The program has to figure out what word relates to the topic and in what way. EG, in this post I use the word 'figure', but it does not relate to the topic of intelligence and is a verb.

That is what artificial intelligence is about: getting info out of a big mash of data with no calculable pattern. For example, to solve chess, you have to figure out which moves are good out of all the possible moves (the big mash of data). Chess is currently not calculable because there are too many possible moves, so the program has to 'guess' or reason to some degree.

Your average database search is not AI because the data is organized.

Re:Since when (1)

Alef (605149) | more than 7 years ago | (#17500436)

That is the thing with artificial intelligence research. So long as the concepts are understood only by researchers, people call it AI and regard it as something mysterious, but as soon as it gets useful applications and reaches the public it becomes "just statistics" or "business rule engines" or something similar. What you describe is data mining, a concept on the verge of entering the public mind.

Just make spam a crime! (3, Insightful)

D4C5CE (578304) | more than 7 years ago | (#17499358)

However many academic papers and spam filters throw their ever-more-elaborate algorithms at this issue, it is an arms race that cannot be won by the "good guys", as long as lawmakers keep pretending that technology alone could prevent the effects of sociopathic behavior: unsolicited bulk messages won't go away unless sending them is severely punishable and vigorously prosecuted in all nations that contribute to the problem. This should have happened more than a decade ago, but now the world is simply running out of storage, bandwidth and CPU cycles much too quickly to afford waiting another decade (or even a year) for serious, intransigent anti-spam legislation that is long overdue.

Re:Just make spam a crime! (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17499564)

I should say I've had a grand total of 2 or maybe 3 spam emails end up in my inbox in the past 2 years, and only about 1 a day (on average) end up in my junk folder (I do a quick scan now and then, and find a couple false positives a year). Even my gmail account, which is my throwaway sign-up-for-stuff account, I don't get much spam in my inbox (maybe a couple a month)...thankfully I don't care about false positives there, as I get one spam every few minutes for that account :D

But for me, spam is a solved problem. Email for me is quick, painless, FREE, and 99.9% spam-free. Is there any reason I should think that this is going to change? Why should I care? If administrators are truly having a difficult time with spam, they're not letting me know about it, through my pocketbook or otherwise.

Re:Just make spam a crime! (1)

Neoprofin (871029) | more than 7 years ago | (#17499770)

For me, drug addiction, poverty, world hunger, nuclear proliferation, racism, sexual harrasment, and rising energy concerns have all been solved. Whew! Glad we got that out of the way.

Just because a problem is not having an obvious and overt effect on you personally doesn't erase your knowledge that something exists. Administrators are having a problem, they're telling you with their actions. If there was no spam there'd be no spam filters, if it wasn't getting worse they wouldn't need better ones. You clearly read /. you can't claim ignorance.

Just make word substitution a crime! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17499672)

Substitute "piracy" for "spam" and reread your post.

Re:Just make spam a crime! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17500486)

bulk messages won't go away unless sending them is severely punishable and vigorously prosecuted in all nations that contribute to the problem.

Sending spam without marking it as such is already a crime. Much as outlawing drugs has done nothing to solve drug problems, making spam a crime has done absolutely nothing to solve the spam problem. Most spammers are hosted in the United States. If this issue bothers you so much, you can certainly write to your President and ask him to enforce the CAN-SPAM Act of 2003. That, however will also not make a difference. It will simply further fill up our jails with petty criminals which is already the reason the United States has the highest incarceration rate in the world.

Writing stricter laws isn't going to go over very well with people who support the first amendment. The CAN-SPAM Act is already pushing the limits of regulation over speech. You may note the CAN-SPAM Act only limits commercial speech. If the law had gone further, the ACLU, EFF, et al would have been all over it.

If you want to cut down on spam, you will have to solve the problem on your end with automated filters or by simply not giving out your email address to those who can't be trusted.

In summary, your post advocates a

( ) technical (x) legislative ( ) market-based ( ) vigilante

approach to fighting spam. Your idea will not work. Here is why it won't work. (One or more of the following may apply to your particular idea, and it may have other flaws which used to vary from state to state before a bad federal law was passed.)

( ) Spammers can easily use it to harvest email addresses
( ) Mailing lists and other legitimate email uses would be affected
( ) No one will be able to find the guy or collect the money
( ) It is defenseless against brute force attacks
(x) It will stop spam for two weeks and then we'll be stuck with it
( ) Users of email will not put up with it
( ) Microsoft will not put up with it
( ) The police will not put up with it
(x) Requires too much cooperation from spammers
( ) Requires immediate total cooperation from everybody at once
( ) Many email users cannot afford to lose business or alienate potential employers
( ) Spammers don't care about invalid addresses in their lists
( ) Anyone could anonymously destroy anyone else's career or business

Specifically, your plan fails to account for

(x) Laws expressly prohibiting it
( ) Lack of centrally controlling authority for email
(x) Open relays in foreign countries
( ) Ease of searching tiny alphanumeric address space of all email addresses
(x) Asshats
( ) Jurisdictional problems
( ) Unpopularity of weird new taxes
( ) Public reluctance to accept weird new forms of money
( ) Huge existing software investment in SMTP
( ) Susceptibility of protocols other than SMTP to attack
( ) Willingness of users to install OS patches received by email
(x) Armies of worm riddled broadband-connected Windows boxes
( ) Eternal arms race involved in all filtering approaches
( ) Extreme profitability of spam
(x) Joe jobs and/or identity theft
(x) Technically illiterate politicians
( ) Extreme stupidity on the part of people who do business with spammers
(x) Dishonesty on the part of spammers themselves
( ) Bandwidth costs that are unaffected by client filtering
( ) Outlook

and the following philosophical objections may also apply:
(x) Ideas similar to yours are easy to come up with, yet none have ever been shown practical
( ) Any scheme based on opt-out is unacceptable
( ) SMTP headers should not be the subject of legislation
( ) Blacklists suck
( ) Whitelists suck
(x) We should be able to talk about Viagra without being censored
( ) Countermeasures should not involve wire fraud or credit card fraud
( ) Countermeasures should not involve sabotage of public networks
( ) Countermeasures must work if phased in gradually
( ) Sending email should be free
( ) Why should we have to trust you and your servers?
( ) Incompatiblity with open source or open source licenses
(x) Feel-good measures do nothing to solve the problem
( ) Temporary/one-time email addresses are cumbersome
( ) I don't want the government reading my email
( ) Killing them that way is not slow and painful enough

Furthermore, this is what I think about you:

( ) Sorry dude, but I don't think it would work.
(x) This is a stupid idea, and you're a stupid person for suggesting it.
( ) Nice try, assh0le! I'm going to find out where you live and burn your house down!

For true AI, you need 3d spacial recognition (1)

CrazyJim1 (809850) | more than 7 years ago | (#17499368)

All these word relation AI's make me laugh. We could have real AI if you wanted to put effort into it. Link [geocities.com]

Re:For true AI, you need 3d spacial recognition (1)

smallfries (601545) | more than 7 years ago | (#17501038)

The ironic part is that when I went to click on the link, the Geocities account was already dead. And yet I didn't need to read the page to understand that the author was a crank. That's the thing about intelligence that nobody has ever managed to capture to in a formal system.

how about pen1s en1argement? (1)

gamer4Life (803857) | more than 7 years ago | (#17499452)

Do they substitute numbers for letters in their filtering?

associations... (1)

pedantic bore (740196) | more than 7 years ago | (#17499558)

Given that the link distance between randomly chosen wikipedia articles is about five (sorry, don't have a link to where I saw this... and it was a while ago so maybe it's changed...) practically everything is going to be strongly associated with spam keywords.

I don't see how this is getting us anywhere except moving closer to having a spam filter that just returns "true" to anything that isn't white-listed.

Looks like good research (2, Informative)

MarkWatson (189759) | more than 7 years ago | (#17499568)

I will read the paper when I get the proceedings for the International Joint Conference for Artificial Intelligence. From the article, this seems like a statistical natural language processing application: the examples looked like they collect statistics of associations for both single word and short word sequences.

BTW, associating, clustering, etc. documents using single word statistics is computationally cheap and easy - it is also associating short word sequences that makes this a difficult problem.

Re:Looks like good research (1)

saddino (183491) | more than 7 years ago | (#17499664)

The computational effort for short word sequences is no longer much of an issue. For example, the web clustering algorithm in the free application CQ web [q-phrase.com] computes clusters in corpus phrases up to seven words in length, and it runs without a hiccup on your standard Windows or Mac desktop.

Not very "intelligent" (4, Insightful)

iamacat (583406) | more than 7 years ago | (#17499632)

There are lots of legit e-mails discussing vitamins, viagara or even penis enlargement, this post included.

Not New, not newsworthy (3, Informative)

Sub Zero 992 (947972) | more than 7 years ago | (#17499736)

Anybody who has been working in the field of NLP (natural language processing) can do little more than snear at this story.

The field of word sense exploration is one of the more mature areas of NLP, take a look at Princeton's WordNet database for an example [http://wordnet.princeton.edu/]. Using their word sense database (without referring to silly words such as "ontology") it has been possible - for years - to discover if two lemmas (thats "words" to you) are related in a particular way, or not related. Using wordnet it is possible to distinguish between antonyms and homonyms, thereby thwarting spammers who use words which sound like "viagra" - "niagra" and words which have opposite meanings.

Artificial is best (1)

kbox (980541) | more than 7 years ago | (#17499794)

Using Wikipedia for artificial intelligence makes far more sense than using it for actual intelligence.

It's not so much a collection of facts as it is a collection of widely believed notions.

Hold the phone (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17499866)

Spam blocking isn't rocket science.

Block: Anything from, through or similar to a gateway that has previously been marked spam.
Block: Anything that appears to be a price list.
Block: Anything that includes an attachment unless the sender is on your whitelist.
Block: Anything with URLs that are not from domains in the user's contact list or domain whitelist.

Or (preferred):

Block: Anything not on the user's whitelist.

If you want to get on my whitelist, find some other way to contact me first.

Make the people accountable (1)

thePig (964303) | more than 7 years ago | (#17499904)

This is a little off-topic, but I guess the only way to take out this menace of spam is to make the average joe accountable.
If the spam originated from a botnet in his machine, make him accountable too.

If he has installed the latest updates from Microsoft and still the botnet could get in, then it is not an issue. But, if he has not taken the effort to download the patches for say, the last 6 months, and a botnet operated from his machine, causing discomfiture to all and sundry, then he is accountable for it.

Push forward legal actions against the 'joe' and we would see real increase in the understanding of computers fallibility and a real decrease in the amount of spam.

Look up Abstraction Physics (1)

3seas (184403) | more than 7 years ago | (#17499978)

http://threeseas.net/abstraction_physics.html [threeseas.net]

considering the article is from physorg......

and to think they plan to patent it? Abstraction Physics?

I don't think so...

Perhaps this is all that we were missing for AI (1)

alexwcovington (855979) | more than 7 years ago | (#17500010)

A knowledge base with associative retrieval capability has eluded researchers but they have one in Wikipedia. Now if only they can get AI to successfully [and hopefully, correctly] modify the knowledge base...

Hutter Prize (2, Informative)

Baldrson (78598) | more than 7 years ago | (#17500122)

As has been previously reported on slashdot, The Hutter Prize for Lossless Compression of Human Knowledge [slashdot.org] uses a snapshot of Wikipedia for rigorously benchmarking AI (and it has already had it's first payout [slashdot.org] ).

The rigor of the benchmark is the key. The Turing Test really only benchmarks human mimicry -- not intelligence per se. The new theoretic basis of universal intelligence [hutter1.net] allows a mathematically rigorous approach to AI that is reviving the field after nearly 50 years of drifting in a stagnant pool of inadequate concepts.

Hutter Prize - a little realism is in order (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17501358)

The new theoretic basis of universal intelligence allows a mathematically rigorous approach to AI that is reviving the field after nearly 50 years of drifting in a stagnant pool of inadequate concepts.
That is a gross overstatement of both Hutter's success at solving useful AI problems and his influence in the AI community, to say the least. Just because it happens to be your favorite theory doesn't mean it has actually revolutionized the whole field of AI.

I, for one, welcome our ... (1)

bentrop (729394) | more than 7 years ago | (#17500416)

One would think that AI and Wikipedia is a great combination. Isn't it comforting to know, that our future metal overlords will have a profound understanding of 'goatse' and understand every single Simpsons reference?

But spammers can add content to WIkipedia (1)

dpbsmith (263124) | more than 7 years ago | (#17500464)

This is the biggest threat to Wikipedia I've heard in a long time.

If Wikipedia content is used to determine whether a message is spam, suddenly there is a direct incentive to spammers to add spam-related content to Wikipedia.

This is not new (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17500532)

This was first pioneered by Princeton (http://wordnet.princeton.edu/ [princeton.edu] ) and MIT (http://www.conceptnet.org/ [conceptnet.org] ). People are building 'conceptnets' all over the place

Not only are they not the first to build a conceptnet, they are also not the first to build one using Wikipedia as their source.

I will contest this personally if they try to patent it.

As I've Said Many Times Before (1)

Master of Transhuman (597628) | more than 7 years ago | (#17500798)

Conceptual processing is the ONLY way to deal with these issues.

For example, what if I'm getting information sent to me from acquaintances about life extension - references to vitamins and nutrients would abound. But it wouldn't be spam.

An AI spam blocker has to know what I'm interested in, what material I've received before that was cleared, AND has to be able to, in some sense, UNDERSTAND the content rather than just correlating it to other terms atomically in terms of frequency of occurrence. Otherwise, how can it weed out material that correlates BOTH with spam and non-spam?

Without some decent implementation of conceptual processing, this just isn't possible.

Terminus As A.I. (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17501262)

The Foundation Series by Isaac Asimov

The premise of the series is that mathematician Hari Seldon has spent his life developing a branch of mathematics known as psychohistory.

It uses the law of mass action to predict the future on a large scale, such as of planets or empires.

Using these techniques, Seldon foresees the fall of the Galactic Empire, which encompasses the entire Milky Way. He also predicts that there will be a thirty-thousand-year dark age before the next great empire rises.

To prevent this, he decides to create a small secluded haven of technology in a corner of the galaxy (on the planet Terminus) called the Foundation, whose job it will be to preserve knowledge after the collapse, thus reducing the time required for the next Empire to rebuild. If done properly, it will take only a thousand years before the next empire rises.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Foundation_Series [wikipedia.org]

BRAVE NEW WORLD by Aldous Huxley

"I'd like to show you some very interesting conditioning for Alpha Plus Intellectuals. We have a big batch of them on Rack 5. First Gallery level."

http://www.huxley.net/bnw/ [huxley.net]

1984 by George Orwell

WAR IS PEACE - FREEDOM IS SLAVERY - IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

http://www.online-literature.com/orwell/1984/ [online-literature.com]

Source page where quotes came from is OFF TOPIC from discussion and has nothing with this thread. It is presented as 'source reference only', no need to visit:

http://www.flyingsnail.com/Scrapbook/page001.html [flyingsnail.com]

Please read before moderation. This post is an attempt to provoke imagination and humor in this thread and (imo) is on topic. Thank You ... A.C.

Lameness filter (1)

compandsci (1045690) | more than 7 years ago | (#17501412)

Who needs AI for spam filters? Just use the lameness filter: if lameness(new_mail) > 94 { bounce(new_mail, bill.gates@microsoft.com); delete(new_mail); }
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>